WWWBoard/LT

Renaissance Forum   Humanities & Classics 1002

[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

In Reply to: The Main Point posted by Angela Malley on December 08, 1998 at 13:37:26:

I agree with you in that we are losing the majority of the film by focusing on these brief few moments. Do you not also think that the reason this particular sex scene is so discussed among us, and I'm sure among others, is the fact that as a public viewing audience in the 1990's, we are uncomfortable with the explicitness and details shown? We tend to shy away from sexuality when we are face to face with it, even though sex itself is openly discussed, almost to the point of nausea. We, as college students, know all of the types of protection to use, how to say no, when to say no, how to respect our bodies and ourselves, but when we are shown the sexuality of others, many of us start to squirm. The sexuality shown in "The Name of the Rose" is the reality of the time, as well as the reality of today. Why then, are we so offended by reality? I realize that the role of women in this film is minimal and degrading when looked at by today's standards. But this woman, this peasant "sex fiend" as she has been called on this forum, was simply trying to survive. That's life- we have to face the fact that the standards of life today are very different from the standards of life at the time portrayed in this film. If this scene was eliminated, wouldn't we lose another viewpoint of monastic life in the medieval era? We cannot live our lives in constant states of comfort- if we never ventured into the realm of discomfort, how would we learn a thing from the past?

Follow Ups:

POST FOLLOWUP

NAME:
E-MAIL:
SUBJECT:

RESPONSE:
: I agree with you in that we are losing the majority of the film by focusing on these brief few moments. Do you not also think that the reason this particular sex scene is so discussed among us, and I'm sure among others, is the fact that as a public viewing audience in the 1990's, we are uncomfortable with the explicitness and details shown? We tend to shy away from sexuality when we are face to face with it, even though sex itself is openly discussed, almost to the point of nausea. We, as college students, know all of the types of protection to use, how to say no, when to say no, how to respect our bodies and ourselves, but when we are shown the sexuality of others, many of us start to squirm. The sexuality shown in "The Name of the Rose" is the reality of the time, as well as the reality of today. Why then, are we so offended by reality? I realize that the role of women in this film is minimal and degrading when looked at by today's standards. But this woman, this peasant "sex fiend" as she has been called on this forum, was simply trying to survive. That's life- we have to face the fact that the standards of life today are very different from the standards of life at the time portrayed in this film. If this scene was eliminated, wouldn't we lose another viewpoint of monastic life in the medieval era? We cannot live our lives in constant states of comfort- if we never ventured into the realm of discomfort, how would we learn a thing from the past?

LINK URL:
LINK TITLE:
IMAGE URL:

---

[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

---

[ FOLLOW UPS ] [ POST FOLLOWUP ]

---

 

v 1.1 is made possbile by:

Original WWWBoard design and code by Matt Wright.  See the original at Matt's Script Acrhive. WWWBoard v2.0a © 1998 Matt Wright. WWWBoard/LT Upgrade by Lion Templin of Leonine Computational Resources.  © 1998 Lion Templin. Tom Bacig, University of Minnesota, Duluth.  © 1998 Tom Bacig.